Rams tiebreaker

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Alright. I saw mutineers question of this in another post, but the answers still don't make sense to me.
Could someone please explain to me why the Rams win the tie with the Saints eventhough we beat the Rams earlier ...

Alright. I saw mutineers question of this in another post, but the answers still don't make sense to me.
Could someone please explain to me why the Rams win the tie with the Saints eventhough we beat the Rams earlier this year? Please explain as if I am a retarded 5 year old so that I can understand.

It\'s because we ended up in a 3-way tie with the Vikings and Rams. In that case, head-to-head is only used if one team either beat both the others or lost to both the others, which did not happen. The next tie-breaker is conference record, which puts the Saints last of the three tied teams.

It\'s because we ended up in a 3-way tie with the Vikings and Rams. In that case, head-to-head is only used if one team either beat both the others or lost to both the others, which did not happen. The next tie-breaker is conference record, which puts the Saints last of the three tied teams.

I still don\'t get it. I thought head to head vs other teams was the first determination. If anyone has some articles regarding this, please post them.

I enjoyed watching the Saints play their hearts out today no matter if we made the playoffs or not and no matter what anyone says, the Saints left it on the field today and the past 4 weeks.

Gator I read it earlier and then I read it again from your post. It is way too much to absorb. But i did understand the do not pass go do not collect $200.00 part. Alot of expendable effort to ultimately tell me what i have already been told. The team will be watching the playoffs on T.V.

Gator I read it earlier and then I read it again from your post. It is way too much to absorb. But i did understand the do not pass go do not collect $200.00 part. Alot of expendable effort to ultimately tell me what i have already been told. The team will be watching the playoffs on T.V.

How \'bout this: The Saints win just one of the games they pissed away this season and they\'re in. No need for convaluted tiebreakers or help from anyone. Brooks can run his mouth all he wants but he was every bit responsible for the losses this year as he was the wins. And, after reading his comments from earlier this week, it\'s clear he still hasn\'t learned the meaning of \"leadership\". Once again he\'ll have the entire playoff season and off season to learn about the concept but somehow I just don\'t think it\'s every gonna dawn on him that the stupid things he says are read by his teammates. Which is one of the main reasons why, contrary to his own belief, he\'ll never really be a \"great quarterback\".

So, the bottom line is if the Saints go 9-7 they\'re in the playoffs. They didn\'t and so they\'re not. As much as everyone, including the players. coaching staff and a lot of fans, would like to put this in the context of one game and bad circumstances it\'s a 16 game season. And the Saints didn\'t play well enough throughout that 16 game season. Period. So, once again, we wait til next year.

Head to head decides first, which is why we could have still gotten in if the Vikings and Seahawks won, even if the Rams won.

It took me all afternoon, but I think I got this right. There were two scenarios for the Saints, I\'ll explain why they work.

The Saints, Rams, Vikings, Seahawks and Panthers all entered the week able to end the week 8-8. The tie-breaker for the Panthers was obvious - the game we won.

If the Rams had lost, they would have ended up 7-9 and we\'d be in on record.

Tf the Rams had won and Seattle lost, the Rams would have won the NFC West and the Seahawks hold the tie-breaker on us for their win in week 1.

Had the Vikings won, they would have ended 9-7 leaving only a two-way tie for the 6th spot between us and the Rams, which we would win for our win over them.

As it happened, the Rams won and the Vikings lost leaving a three way tie at 8-8. I THINK that we beat the Rams, the Vikings beat us, and the Rams beat the Vikings. Thus, head-to-head cannot work. So you have to go to NFC record. We were worst in the NFC, so we\'re out.

Just when I think I get it........
So, I look at our conference records on NFL .com and it has St. Louis at 7-5
New Orleans 6-6
Minn. 5-7
What the ?http://www.nfl.com/standings

You got it right. The conference record is used to break the tie. So with the 7-5 conference record, the Rams win the #5 WC seed.

Now there\'s two teams left and you start all over again.

Minnesota has a 38-31 win over the Saints and wins the head to head tiebreaker.

So Minnesota gets the #6 seed...

...and the Saints are heading into the offseason with their heads high knowing that they left it all on the field and put the Panthers out of the playoffs.

BTW this is why we needed both Seattle and Minnesota to win. In that scenario Seattle wins the West, and Minnesota wins the #5 seed with a 9-7 record. That then leaves the Rams and the Saints at 8-8. Since we beat the Rams, we would have gotten the #6 seed.

What a stupid, crack-headed way of determining things. It\'s ironic that under this scheme, Minnesota\'s win over us matters, but our win over the Rams means nothing. I think my bosses at work must\'ve drawn this up, they\'re the only people I can think of whose logic is so illogical.

You wanna use the conference records to break the 3-way tie, that\'s just fine and dandy with me, but (here\'s a concept) STICK TO IT. Under those pretensions you might think the 7-5 (conf) Rams and 6-6 (conf) Saints would get the wildcards. You\'d be wrong, silly rational person! No, the Rams get in and THEN it\'s finally decided to take head-to-head into account. Thereby the 5-7 (conf) Vikings - who just happened to lose their last 3 games - get the wildcard over the 6-6 (conf) Saints.

Make sense to everybody? I thought so...

Now, it\'s true that in the grand scheme of things it probably doesn\'t really matter - no 8-8 team has ever won a playoff game (according to ESPN). But the Saints probably had a sight better chance of giving the Packers a decent game than those choke-jobs in Minnesota do. Postgame press conferences with Tice and the Vikings players (courtesy of NFL Network) certainly don\'t seem to reflect a team who believes they have a chance to win. And NEWS FLASH - they don\'t.

Must be nice to play in the NFC West or North. Two games each against the Cardinals, Seahawks and 49er\'s OR the Lions, Bears and Packers (respectively). Either case is more attractive than two each against the Falcons, Panthers and Bucs. Oh well, no: \"ifs, buts, candy or nuts\" this Christmas...

Go Packers!!! (might as well pull for Favre now, I hate every team left...)